onion2kMar 17

But you can’t just not review things!

Actually you can. If you shift the reviews far to the left, and call them code design sessions instead, and you raise problems on dailys, and you pair programme through the gnarly bits, then 90% of what people think a review should find goes away. The expectation that you'll discover bugs and architecture and design problems doesn't exist if you've already agreed with the team what you're going to build. The remain 10% of things like var naming, whitespace, and patterns can be checked with a linter instead of a person. If you can get the team to that level you can stop doing code reviews.

You also need to build a team that you can trust to write the code you agreed you'd write, but if your reviews are there to check someone has done their job well enough then you have bigger problems.

Show threadalkonautMar 17

This falls for the famous "hours of planning can save minutes of coding". Architecture can't (all) be planned out on a whiteboard, it's the response to the difficulty you only realize as you try to implement.

If you can agree what to build and how to build it and then it turns out that actually is a working plan - then you are better than me. That hasn't happened in 20 years of software development. Most of what's planned falls down within the first few hours of implementation.

Iterative architecture meetings will be necessary. But that falls into the pit of weekly meeting.

Show threadsodapopcanMar 17
Pair programming 100% of also works. It's unfortunately widely unpopular, but it works.
Show threadiampims
I’ve started pair programming with Claude and it’s been pretty fun. We make a plan together, I type the code and Claude reviews it. Then we switch.
Mar 17 at 2:02pmWeb
Show threadlelandfeMar 17
You’ve made the analogy but I don’t think you’re actually doing an analogous thing. I think you’re just talking about code review.